Abortion is probably the most effective cost control available to medicare, if abortion were forced we could eliminate the total cost of education in 25 years, and the total cost of medicare within 100 years.
With these real projected cost savings how
could any economist or government consider
making these savings illegal?

What's that libertarian line... I believe in the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe and the personal freedom that liberals used to believe...

Even staunch pro-choicers should think twice before supporting the liberal philosophy. Not just this example but look at what Czar Holdren has said - that forcing abortions is an acceptable role of gov't if there is sufficient reason (population control). This says very clearly that liberals no longer believe people own their bodies and their lives.

Since Roc v. Wade abortion has been a very effective means of reducing the number of people who pay taxes. With more people paying in, both Social Security and Medicare would be more solvent. It's not fair to ding big government people for the opportunity cost of large government spending and not ding pro-death people for the opportunity cost of the millions of missing productive citizens.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

P.S. Hi. Back from D.C. where I and two of my daughters protested the health bill at the Bachman rally and then went to tell my Congressman's staff what a bad idea the bill was. The rally was lovely. The staff was helpful - and long winded. The Congressman was wrong before I visited and wrong after. Oh, well.

Yeah. But what if they turned out unproductive because their mothers didn't want them?

Thanks for representing me in DC.

Yeah. But what if they turned out unproductive because their mothers didn't want them?

Parents usually love those little reproductive suprises. (Which is what most abortions are about.) It would be maladaptive if we didn't. I'm also not seeing many reports of how unproductive people raised in orphanages were. Doubt it's a problem.

Thanks for representing me in DC.

You are welcome.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Some statistics guys who are fairly reputable (U Chicago) found a negative correlation between abortion and crime. i.e. abortion up - delay - crime down.

BTW love and commitment is somewhat proportional to resources available.

The answer to that is more welfare. And that is the Catholic Church position.

I have often thought that the antis could stop all abortions if they paid $20,000 per live birth and $10,000 a year for 12 years, $15,000 for six years. And $20,000 for four years. Thus getting the kid through school.

Of course you then run into the moral hazard of women having kids for the guaranteed income.

You know - letting government intrude into this area is going to be costly and fraught with moral hazard.

The cheap answer is more orphanages.

Some statistics guys who are fairly reputable (U Chicago) found a negative correlation between abortion and crime. i.e. abortion up - delay - crime down.

It's well known from demographics that people commit more crime when young, so I would expect that anything which decreased the number of 14 to 25 year olds would decrease crime.

BTW love and commitment is somewhat proportional to resources available.

Not sure about that. Really poor people in really poor countries are pretty attached to their kids.

But a culture that encourages people to be selfish materialistic narcissists (Sp?) could easily decrease love and commitment. And liberal divorce laws do as well.

Not sure you should open up that can of worms with a socon, Simon. The culture war will begin raining mortar shells all around you.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

How true. But short of a change in heart nothing will change (much).

And what ever you legislate you have to consider compliance. If you don't get 99%+ voluntary compliance enforcement costs go up. Up to the point where you need a police state to enforce the laws. With RU-486 and birth control pills a reality it may be possible to cut out the doctors and still have a problem. Of course we can make birth control pills illegal. Compounding the problem.

All Moral Socialism amounts to is price supports for criminals.

Seriously - you think abortion prohibition is going to work any better than drug prohibition?

Why not put your efforts into something that can work? Changing minds.

Of course if the antis were willing to pay women to bring all conceptions to term - that might work - provided there was a guaranteed annual income for child support attached. Which is in fact the Catholic position. Those folks know their morality.

And the worst place to enact anti-abortion laws is America. We are a nation inclined to lawbreaking if we don't like the laws. The Drug War is a perfect example.

Republican Socialism - price supports for criminals.

Pass all the laws you want when you can. Then try to make them stick.

All Moral Socialism amounts to is price supports for criminals.

True. Contracting for a hit man is much cheaper in Somalia.

Seriously - you think abortion prohibition is going to work any better than drug prohibition?

Why not put your efforts into something that can work? Changing minds.

Simon, drug prohibition works. Fewer people use drugs because it is illegal. If pot were legal I probably would have used MJ brownies when I was young, especially when I roomed with a pothead. (Smoking anything gives me an asthma attack.) I am not alone in this. Alcohol prohibition worked. Fewer people drank during prohibition. And abortion prohibition really worked. Many, many, many woman gave up their babies for adoption during abortion prohibition. Almost none do now.

This is because many people consider illegality to be strongly moral persuasive. For a lot of people if it is illegal it must be wrong, and so they won't do it - or they will at least do it less. (I tried smoking pot once as recommended by my pothead roomate - and had an asthma attack.) In short, passing a law is a great way to change alot of minds.

I'm sure that we won't get 100% following the law. I'm sure there will be costs enforcing the law. And I'm sure that illegal abortions will be more expensive.

I find your argument to be completely unpersuasive and both morally and ethically repugnant. There are no criminal activities for which enforcement rates are 100%. There are no criminal activities for which enforcement costs are zero. And there are no criminal activities which wouldn't be cheaper if they weren't illegal.

This is a matter of killing someone, Simon. Do you really think economic arguments like this advance your cause? Talk about tone deaf. Do not ever make this argument in this form to a pro-lifer again. If they don't consider you an utterly immoral person (in the way that Chomsky is immoral for excusing the gulag) they may consider you insane. I just think that when it comes to persuasive argument you don't have a clue how to preach to any audience other than the choir. Don't worry about the missing clue. Most people can't get that clue. I don't think I have it, either. Engineers aren't taught to think like that.

If you want to persuade pro-lifers to consider enforcement, ask them about whether they are willing to jail the mother. Then ask them what they would want to do to catch and punish the doctors. You won't get them to agree with your position. But you may get them to move a little.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Oops. Put the closing tag in the wrong place when quoting you, Simon. Should be:

Seriously - you think abortion prohibition is going to work any better than drug prohibition?

Why not put your efforts into something that can work? Changing minds.

Sorry.

No, it was the blog software not acting the way I thought it would.

Seriously - you think abortion prohibition is going to work any better than drug prohibition?

Why not put your efforts into something that can work? Changing minds.

And the worst place to enact anti-abortion laws is America. We are a nation inclined to lawbreaking if we don't like the laws.

Wrong. All of Latin America, Africa, most of Asia and Italy are all more inclined to to lawbreaking if they don't like the laws. Almost no one in India bothers to obey building codes, for example. Here it happens more often. I got a building permit when we rebuilt our deck - and it cost me alot extra to follow the building code. But the new deck was WAY more sturdy than the old, and much safer.

Most people when the come here are impressed at how faithfully we follow various rules.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Tom,

It is easier for school children to get pot and other illegal drugs than it is for them to get a beer. Yep. Prohibition has definitely made it harder to get illegal drugs.

My town of 150,000 has TWO hydroponic supply stores. It is surprising that there are enough African Violet lovers around here to support even one store. Now what do you think the growers are growing? Really.

Are you really so naive as to believe that illegal drugs are not easily available in America? It will be easier in a little while. Maine just voted by a 58% majority to allow the opening of medical marijuana stores. In fact med pot was more popular than traditional marriage in that election. Traditional marriage only got 53%.

You know what policemen call fighting drugs these days? Herding Junkies An excellent use of resources no doubt.

Your faith in government solutions is touching. But I'm kinda an absolutist when it comes to socialism. No to Economic Socialism. No to Moral Socialism.

What happens when socialists with a different morality (such as Presidential Science Adviser Holdren) get into office? Your defenses will be down.

I must say I find your faith in government despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary touching.

I was under the impression that a great teacher of a certain Jewish sect was preaching that government wasn't the answer. His followers have come a long way.

The libertarian factor in American politics is running about 23%. Swing voters. Mostly. They switch back and forth between Rs and Ds depending on how sick they are of the various socialisms. How nice it would be if more socons on the right really believed in limited government. I could see a permanent majority.

What each side does when it is resurgent is to believe it has a mandate for its brand of socialism. And then the tide turns.

Every power you give to government will eventually be used against you. I fear government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Geo. Washington

I will go along with any enactment of morality that has the support of 99%+ of the population. Because it only takes 5% (Drug Law violators) willing to violate the law to make the law a shambles.

I'd say you were no where near 95%.

The NRA has a lock on most of Congress with about 55% support. You don't even have a lock on Congress.

You do have a lock on my Congress Critter. Rather than vote present on Stupak and likely killing the health care bill, he kept his 100% NRLC rating and voted for Stupak.

And you know if we get nationalized health care before you repeal Roe you will be likely paying for abortions. It would be ironic.

These religious crusades that morph into law crusades always turn out badly. The public school system along with forced attendance. (a little trick well supported by Protestants interested in properly socializing Catholics and Jews) Alcohol prohibition (that was really going to improve the social scene. Just ask Billy Sunday). Drug prohibition (did I mention that it is in the process of destroying Mexican society?)

I dunno. I would think that in the face of such massive failures you might wish to rethink your methods (reliance on government solutions).

I think you misread me, Simon. I'm telling you that prohibition does decrease the number of people who perform an illegal act. That's a fairly narrow point. And it's true. You need to be arguing that the side effects are worse than the problem.

In the case of abortion prohibition, however, we used to have millions of adoptions and children placed in orphanages every year, when abortion was prohibited. Now we have almost none. I'd say abortion prohibition saved millions of lives.

And it increased the price of illegal abortions. But I admit it didn't stop them.

Similarly, slave prohibition dramatically decreased the number of slaves in this country. But you can still buy slaves here. The price is higher.

Should I assume that you think slavery should be legal? Murder? Burglarly? I didn't think so. And yet the war on crime has been a notable failure.

What a touching faith you have in government solutions.

Why don't you try to draw a principled discintion between the government solutions in which you have touching faith and the ones in which you have no faith.

I bet it comes down to whether there is a victim. Say for example the crime of cruelty towards animals. The animal is a victim.

Abortion has a victim, Simon.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

P.S. I find your new category of Moral Socialism to be completely useless. For thousands of years slave holding was considered moral. Now it is immoral. Moral socialism at work? And I bet there are plenty of laws that don't have the support of 99%+ of the population you would not repeal.

I'm not buying it.